2015 (10) TMI 525 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment - non approval from competent authority - accommodation entry receipts - Held that - Respectfully following the above decision in the case of SPL S Siddhartha Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT hold that the assessment reopened with the approval of Commissioner of Income-tax, whereas the statute required the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, is not valid. We, therefore, quash the reopening of assessment. Since the reopening of assessment itself has been quashed, the consequential assessment orders passed for the above asstt. years 2002-03 is also quashed. As we have already quashed the assessment orders, the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the additions made by the Assessing Officer need no adjudication. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147/148.
2. Jurisdictional authority for granting sanction under section 151(2).
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
4. Additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee.

Issue 1: Validity of Reopening of Assessment under Section 147/148:
The appeal challenged the reassessment under section 147 initiated without passing a speaking order examining the objections to the notice u/s 147/148. The addition of Rs. 90,00,000 was contested as beyond the reasons recorded, lacking resource of information, and without proper investigation. The order upholding the addition on share subscription and commission was disputed. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was taken up on merits. The Tribunal observed that the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond the statutory period of four years without the required sanction, rendering the reassessment invalid. Citing legal principles, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment and subsequent assessment orders for the concerned year.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional Authority for Granting Sanction under Section 151(2):
The key legal issue revolved around the authority empowered to grant sanction for reopening the assessment. Section 151(2) mandates the Joint Commissioner to grant such approval beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, in this case, the Commissioner of Income Tax granted the sanction instead of the Joint Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized that the jurisdictional authority for granting sanction is crucial for the validity of reassessment proceedings. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal held that the approval by the Commissioner was not in line with statutory requirements, leading to the quashing of the reassessment due to lack of proper jurisdiction.

Issue 3: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The assessee filed a petition seeking condonation of a 29-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after reviewing the petition, found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it in the interest of substantial justice. Consequently, the matter was considered on its merits.

Issue 4: Additional Grounds of Appeal Filed by the Assessee:
The assessee filed additional grounds of appeal related to the absence of proper approval for concluding the reassessment, challenging the jurisdictional authority and citing legal precedents. The Tribunal acknowledged the legal nature of the additional grounds and allowed their admission for examination. The Tribunal's decision to quash the reassessment rendered the need for adjudicating the grounds against the additions made moot.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the critical legal issues, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the ultimate decision to quash the reassessment due to lack of proper sanctioning authority, ensuring justice in accordance with the law.